MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
ubl-ndrsc message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl-ndrsc] NDR Review - Section 7.7
From: Eduardo Gutentag <>
To: "Eve L. Maler" <>
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 10:50:42 -0800
Can xsd:extension and xsd:restriction be applied to xsd:choice? Does
anyone remember?
Eve L. Maler wrote:
> Hi folks-- I bet you thought I had fallen off the edge of the earth,
> huh? I hope you're all well, and I wish you a happy 2004.
>
> I wasn't going to comment on this issue, but Mike's message has
> emboldened me. As he points out, it poses no particular problems that a
> maxOccurs greater than 1 doesn't already have, so at the least, the
> rationale shouldn't be as stated below.
>
> But beyond that, I think it's a little weird to actually forbid choice
> groups. It feels a little like "All that is not mandatory is
> forbidden". It's certainly going to be more rare in business documents
> than in prose documents; perhaps a need for it will pop up in catalogs,
> which are a hybrid?... I believe the main reason UBL doesn't have *any*
> choice groups to date is that its chosen methodology and spreadsheet
> encoding have no way to accommodate it. But I can certainly imagine
> ways for them to do so, if the need arose.
>
> Eve
>
> Grimley Michael J NPRI wrote:
>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> I know we are not currently going to reconsider decisions already
>> made; however, we do have to change the explanatory text around the
>> xsd:choice rule (Section 7.7 - GXS9). It currently reads:
>>
>> ==================================================
>> The xsd:choice compositor allows for any element declared inside it to
>> occur in the
>> instance document, but only one. As with the xsd:all compositor, this
>> feature is
>> inconsistent with business transaction exchanges and is not allowed in
>> UBL.
>> ==================================================
>>
>> I don't think this is true. As I had mentioned on yesterday's call,
>> because an xsd:choice element can be contained within an xsd:sequence,
>> it leads to no more uncertainty/variability in an instance than a
>> "minOccurs='0'" does; therefore, I don't believe it is "inconsistent
>> with business transaction exchanges".
>>
>> Comments?
>>
>> Thank You,
>> Mike Grimley
>
>
--
Eduardo Gutentag | e-mail:
Web Technologies and Standards | Phone: +1 510 550 4616 x31442
Sun Microsystems Inc. |
W3C AC Rep / OASIS BoD
